Plagiarism or what?.

[philipward]

"With all the discussions-

 

over copyright infringement filling these forums I am laughing out loud you'd find this image acceptable for public

release. Blatant plagiarism. Even the rankest amateur should know better."

 

I was very surprised to receive the above critique from a fashion shooter regarding a shot I had posted in the Street

and Documentary forum.What is your opinion as fashion/ portrait shooters.Have I stepped over the line into

plargiarism ?.Should S&D shooters steer away from including others work juxtaposed in their Art.I have posted a

similar question in the S&D forum to get the view from both sides of the fence<div></div>

[marlon]

<p>I disagree. Any photo from any city street will have numerous advertisements and logos in it. What if you took a picture of someone wearing a Nike t-shirt? Would you have to blur the logo?</p>

<p>If you're selling the image... it's a different story, I'd think, but don't quote me on that. But to post on a forum you're not infringing on the artist/company's property... since it's published in public.</p>

<p>If you filled your frame SOLELY of the ad and said "hey everyone, check out this portrait I took of this male model"... then yeah, that's a problem... but if you get a McDonald's sign in one of your shots, you don't have to send them royalties if you're subject is clearly a street performer.</p>

<p>Long story short... Take whatever you hear on a forum with a grain of salt... The most common complaint you'll hear from lawyers is that everyone else thinks they're one despite the years of school and practice, and you can quote me on that!</p>

[leicaglow]

<p>If it did have a logo, though, I know editors who would be all over me for releases to show the brand in the image.</p>

[wogears]

<p>I wouldn't underestimate the power of greed, but I think you're totally clear for non-commercial use. There are some famous images of women looking at posters of Marilyn Monroe, for example.</p>

[dave_s]

<p><em>cf.</em> <a href="http://firstpulseprojects.com/On-the-Rights-of-Molotov-Man.pdf">Molotov Man</a>.</p>

[parv]

Also in http://www.photo.net/street-documentary-photography-forum/00XziU >-[

[steve_lantz]

<p>Thanks for the link Dave, fantastic reading and viewpoints. I am surprised with the artist community's response by further reproducing the image in protest. How would most of them feel if someone did that to their work? </p>

<p>Susan's response is honorable and worthy of praise. She chose to present a verbal argument to the community instead of a legal one to a judge or jury. I wonder how many of them got her point?</p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>+1 on the link. the levels of irony are fascinating. Joy's POV was pretty interesting as was the response by the artist community. but then susan presented the context behind the picture, which put a whole new spin on things. but there was also another obvious point she glossed over: did her lawyer attempt to collect licensing fees from the Nicaraguans, as well?</p>

<p>what seems clear is that that which is iconic will eventually and inevitably be appropriated in some shape of form, one way or the other. so should we distinguish between acceptable appropriation and that which is unacceptable to us? or, should we be fortunate enough to create an iconic work, should we just be happy for the life it's lived?</p>

[rsands]

<p>There is a discussion going on in Toronto in the same vein; a streetcar photograph appears (to me and many others) to be the clear inspiration for a painting. You can see them side-by-side in the below link.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.thestar.com/news/article/912094--streetcar-photo-raises-questions-about-inspiration">http://www.thestar.com/news/article/912094--streetcar-photo-raises-questions-about-inspiration</a></p>

<p> </p>

[mark_lawrence2]

<p>I wish only the best and would like to see everything go well for you. </p>